Thought this topic might be deserving of its own thread. (Assuming that Baldwin is indeed leaving for the HC position at Cal Poly): would any of our coaching staff go with him?

I know that a big piece of that would be what we're telling the rest of the coaches regarding their futures.

But on the offensive side, I think only Edwards was a Baldwin guy, right? If Tuiasasopo went with him, I think few would mind. I think of Greatwood as more of a Wilcox guy via Oregon, and Boler as more of a Wilcox guy via Cal, so think/hope they wouldn't go.

And on defense? Nothing says the departing OC wouldn't pitch defensive coaches --- especially if there is a perceived logjam hindering upward mobility. But I think our highest profile defensive coaches, should they consider moving, would have better prospects than a move to low-BCS, even if the position was a promotion to DC (thinking Gerald Alexander specifically).

Anybody have other thoughts?

YamhillBear said:

---

Thought this topic might be deserving of its own thread. (Assuming that Baldwin is indeed leaving for the HC position at Cal Poly): would any of our coaching staff go with him?

I know that a big piece of that would be what we're telling the rest of the coaches regarding their futures.

But on the offensive side, I think only Edwards was a Baldwin guy, right? If Tuiasasopo went with him, I think few would mind. I think of Greatwood as more of a Wilcox guy via Oregon, and Boler as more of a Wilcox guy via Cal, so think/hope they wouldn't go.

And on defense? Nothing says the departing OC wouldn't pitch defensive coaches --- especially if there is a perceived logjam hindering upward mobility. But I think our highest profile defensive coaches, should they consider moving, would have better prospects than a move to low-BCS, even if the position was a promotion to DC (thinking Gerald Alexander specifically).

Anybody have other thoughts?

---

My thought is that it is unlikely anyone we want is going to Cal Poly. If you want to work on a P-5 staff, you don't go to Cal Poly even if you are moving from position coach to coordinator. And that would almost assuredly come with a pay cut.

YamhillBear said:

---

Thought this topic might be deserving of its own thread. (Assuming that Baldwin is indeed leaving for the HC position at Cal Poly): would any of our coaching staff go with him?

I know that a big piece of that would be what we're telling the rest of the coaches regarding their futures.

But on the offensive side, I think only Edwards was a Baldwin guy, right? If Tuiasasopo went with him, I think few would mind. I think of Greatwood as more of a Wilcox guy via Oregon, and Boler as more of a Wilcox guy via Cal, so think/hope they wouldn't go.

And on defense? Nothing says the departing OC wouldn't pitch defensive coaches --- especially if there is a perceived logjam hindering upward mobility. But I think our highest profile defensive coaches, should they consider moving, would have better prospects than a move to low-BCS, even if the position was a promotion to DC (thinking Gerald Alexander specifically).

Anybody have other thoughts?

---

Would an incoming OC accept the job without the freedom to choose his own assistants? Maybe there's someone that he would have wanted anyway (and then it might be up to that someone to agree to the new guy vs move on), but if you're going to be held accountable for results, you'd want your own guys.

As to current guys moving to SLO with BB, As others have said, that's a big pay cut. Maybe you like BB and want to restart/recycle your career, but I see them looking upward, not down. Greatwood? I'm of two minds about the cross-training philosophy, but in any event, he'll land on his feet in any event. If the new OC wants him, I'd be happy to see him happy to stay.

bonsallbear said:

---

We will have a very deep and experienced offensive line and all running backs returning. Greatwood isn't going anywhere.

---

I think we have a real chance for the running game to have a breakout season next year.

I would assume a new OC would get to pick his staff, which means every coach on offense is effectively on the market.

A new OC *might* retain Greatwood, but really given how poor the offense has been these past three years we won't miss any of them. Better Baldwin take them with him and avoid bad feelings of being let go.

OaktownBear said:

---

bonsallbear said:

---

We will have a very deep and experienced offensive line and all running backs returning. Greatwood isn't going anywhere.

---

I think we have a real chance for the running game to have a breakout season next year.

---

Should he stay healthy, brown should have a big year.

bonsallbear said:

---

We will have a very deep and experienced offensive line and all running backs returning. Greatwood isn't going anywhere.

---

As I said, IF the new guy wants him. And, he wants to stay. If you're worth your salt, how would you like it if, in negotiations, JW said, "Oh, by the way, I want Greatwood to stay."?

It is possible that JW and the new guy decide to follow conventional wisdom and keep one guy for continuity. In that case, they might agree on Greatwood, again, if he wants to stay.

Is it really the usual drill for an OC to choose the other assistant coaches on offense? My impression looking back is that OCs come and go (Cortez, Ludwig, etc), but the other coaches often stay (line, running back, etc.) But perhaps I'm wrong on that.

Rushinbear said:

---

Would an incoming OC accept the job without the freedom to choose his own assistants?

---

Yes, it happens all the time. USC's entire offensive staff this year pre-dated Harrell. If the HC already wants to make a change then he might get input from an incoming coordinator. For example, USC's RB coach was a Kingsbury recommendation. Helton had already decided to make a change at the RB spot prior to the Kingsbury hire, though. Just think about it: how many defensive coaches did Clancy bring in for the 2010 season? How many offensive coaches did Spavital bring in?

MSaviolives said:

---

Is it really the usual drill for an OC to choose the other assistant coaches on offense? My impression looking back is that OCs come and go (Cortez, Ludwig, etc), but the other coaches often stay (line, running back, etc.) But perhaps I'm wrong on that.

---

This is my recollection, as well. HC leaves, most all staff is likely out of a job. OC or DC leaves, not so much.

MSaviolives said:

---

Is it really the usual drill for an OC to choose the other assistant coaches on offense? My impression looking back is that OCs come and go (Cortez, Ludwig, etc), but the other coaches often stay (line, running back, etc.) But perhaps I'm wrong on that.

---

The head coach selects the assistants. The coordinators certainly provide input but they are not the "hiring manager".

bonsallbear said:

---

We will have a very deep and experienced offensive line and all running backs returning. Greatwood isn't going anywhere.

---

Hope you're right. It would be a shame to l lose Greatwood. I recall he is more tied to Wilcox than Baldwin, is that true?

Uthaithani said:

---

I would assume a new OC would get to pick his staff, which means every coach on offense is effectively on the market.

A new OC *might* retain Greatwood, but really given how poor the offense has been these past three years we won't miss any of them. Better Baldwin take them with him and avoid bad feelings of being let go.

---

Highly doubtful any current assistants would take a major pay cut as well as the drop from a P-5 team to Cal Poly unless they were either absolutely desperate for a pay check, were personally loyal to Baldwin, or saw a move to OC/DC as part of their career path.

71Bear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Is it really the usual drill for an OC to choose the other assistant coaches on offense? My impression looking back is that OCs come and go (Cortez, Ludwig, etc), but the other coaches often stay (line, running back, etc.) But perhaps I'm wrong on that.

---

The head coach selects the assistants. The coordinators certainly provide input but they are not the "hiring manager".

---

Agree, while the HC may delegate to the OC or even grant the OC hiring authority as a condition of employment, it is the HC's authority to give (of course ultimately it is the AD's hiring authority that has been delegated to the HC in the first place).

Anyone know what Ron Gould's contract at Stanford is like? He recruited and coached some decent RBs here

MSaviolives said:

---

Is it really the usual drill for an OC to choose the other assistant coaches on offense? My impression looking back is that OCs come and go (Cortez, Ludwig, etc), but the other coaches often stay (line, running back, etc.) But perhaps I'm wrong on that.

---

You are not wrong.

Ncsf said:

---

The running backs did a good job and he was the lead on some very good recruits this year and took a big step in that part of it.

---

I have completely changed my view on Edwards. The turnover at WR had more to do with academics, non-cal fits, and an unfortunate situation in Robertson's case. The running back as a group improved despite injuries, it may be the deepest unit on the offense. Edwards has proven to be a good recruiter. He has kept some traditional football powers from poaching the running back recruits. He has a high ceiling. I say keep him, but that really is the call for the new OC and Wilcox.

Bear19 said:

---

bonsallbear said:

---

We will have a very deep and experienced offensive line and all running backs returning. Greatwood isn't going anywhere.

---

Hope you're right. It would be a shame to l lose Greatwood. I recall he is more tied to Wilcox than Baldwin, is that true?

---

yes. Very much so. At some point however, Greatwood will retire.

Cave Bear said:

---

Anyone know what Ron Gould's contract at Stanford is like? He recruited and coached some decent RBs here

---

Intriguing idea about bringing back Ron Gould as OC. He's a great developer of RBs and must know OL schemes well. Don't know about his passing plays and game calling ability. Was hoping Wilcox would bring him back as RB coach a few years ago.

Cave Bear said:

---

Anyone know what Ron Gould's contract at Stanford is like? He recruited and coached some decent RBs here

---

I would love it if we could poach Gould from Stanford, but I suspect he figures he's got a sweet position there.

Who recruited McCaffrey and Love?

Cave Bear said:

---

Anyone know what Ron Gould's contract at Stanford is like? He recruited and coached some decent RBs here

---

I think we should get Tosh back. We should also hire someone from the 49ers staff.

71Bear said:

---

HungryCalBear said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Anyone know what Ron Gould's contract at Stanford is like? He recruited and coached some decent RBs here

---

Intriguing idea about bringing back Ron Gould as OC. He's a great developer of RBs and must know OL schemes well. Don't know about his passing plays and game calling ability. Was hoping Wilcox would bring him back as RB coach a few years ago.

---

If JW didn't hire him when he had a chance, he sure as hell is not going to hire him now for a more responsible position. Why do some Cal fans always look back instead of forward? Gould is gone, forget about him. I'm looking forward to a fresh face that can bring new ideas to the staff. No Taylor, no Gould, no one previously associated with the program would be the best choice...........

---

71 - I agree with you 95% on this issue, but I don't understand the zero tolerance attitude. I'm not looking for Gould to be our OC because I see no reason to believe he is qualified. I'm not looking at him to be RB coach because 1. we have one; and 2. If he was Wilcox's guy and he wanted to be here, he would have been hired 3 years ago; and 3. I just don't care who the position coaches are - at least not until they come here and I see their performance on our team. But if WILCOX wanted Gould, the only thing I would think is that he got a good RB coach. Position coaches come and go. They go to old schools all the time. Why would working at Cal disqualify them?

I'd point out that by your standard, no Wilcox either. He coached here previously, and I think to some extent the reputation he had here from that experience was part of the reason he was hired.

Similarly, I have no strong feeling about Taylor. But if I told you there is an OC that runs our offense who played locally, has strong Northern California ties, has Pac-12 OC experience, knows our current head coach, and is a current head coach at a Northern California FCS school, that would seem a pretty decent fit, wouldn't it? Why does having played QB at Cal disqualify him. Honestly, I have no feeling toward him other than he is a logical fit. I don't really care that he went to Cal. As someone who has supported Baldwin throughout his tenure, I would think you'd see a guy who was Baldwin's OC previously who has Pac-12 experience as a prime candidate to maintain continuity for our young offense and especially QB.

I'd also say that many would be excited to have a coach with Ron Rivera's resume come to Cal whether he played here or not. It would be silly not to consider him because he played at Cal.

I agree with you 95% on the issue because so many people just start naming Cal guys with no sense of whether they are qualified or a right fit, and they usually aren't. But just because people are unreasonable in one direction doesn't mean we respond by being unreasonable in the other. If you told me a coach shouldn't get any preferential consideration because of Cal ties, I might agree with you, but I don't understand the argument that they should be downgraded because of Cal ties, and you are going further and disqualifying them.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Ncsf said:

---

The running backs did a good job and he was the lead on some very good recruits this year and took a big step in that part of it.

---

I have completely changed my view on Edwards. The turnover at WR had more to do with academics, non-cal fits, and an unfortunate situation in Robertson's case. The running back as a group improved despite injuries, it may be the deepest unit on the offense. Edwards has proven to be a good recruiter. He has kept some traditional football powers from poaching the running back recruits. He has a high ceiling. I say keep him, but that really is the call for the new OC and Wilcox.

---

You mean like maybe he proved himself over time, that judging a position coach after a small amount of time has passed isn't the way to go?

mbBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Ncsf said:

---

The running backs did a good job and he was the lead on some very good recruits this year and took a big step in that part of it.

---

I have completely changed my view on Edwards. The turnover at WR had more to do with academics, non-cal fits, and an unfortunate situation in Robertson's case. The running back as a group improved despite injuries, it may be the deepest unit on the offense. Edwards has proven to be a good recruiter. He has kept some traditional football powers from poaching the running back recruits. He has a high ceiling. I say keep him, but that really is the call for the new OC and Wilcox.

---

You mean like maybe he proved himself over time, that judging a position coach after a small amount of time has passed isn't the way to go?

---

Every coach should be judged on their performance to date. Edwards had not done a good job of recruiting after two years. He did a much better job this year.

mbBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Ncsf said:

---

The running backs did a good job and he was the lead on some very good recruits this year and took a big step in that part of it.

---

I have completely changed my view on Edwards. The turnover at WR had more to do with academics, non-cal fits, and an unfortunate situation in Robertson's case. The running back as a group improved despite injuries, it may be the deepest unit on the offense. Edwards has proven to be a good recruiter. He has kept some traditional football powers from poaching the running back recruits. He has a high ceiling. I say keep him, but that really is the call for the new OC and Wilcox.

---

You mean like maybe he proved himself over time, that judging a position coach after a small amount of time has passed isn't the way to go?

---

I was judging him on his inability to retain players and the inability of WRs to gain separation (which still is a problem). Even the mods were pretty negative towards Edwards. The player issues were not on Edwards as it turned out, per Wilcox when he did the coach swing down in SoCal; however, Toler, an alum, is much better at having the WRs navigate being at Cal, also per Wilcox. That isn't an issue with RBs. This was the main reason for the change. And it appears Edwards is doing a good job with the RBs. Wilcox said he considers Edwards an up and coming coach (but in a setting with a lot of people you never going to have Wilcox say anything negative).

Are you being serious? Gould went 12-33 at Davis, 10-22 in league. Five Big Sky wins his last 3 years.

The Aggies had a shockingly predictable run dominant offense. I believe Kevin Daft was his OC? Daft now at Dartmouth, 24-6 in 3 years, 9-1 2 seasons in a row.

Good man, but it seemed like too big of a jump for Gould. And his wife was an interim AD for a period. Awkward. (Former AD Terry Tumey did him no favors by hiring RG late after having been given plenty of time to make a hire. Let's see how TT does this time in Fresno.)

wifeisafurd said:

---

mbBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Ncsf said:

---

The running backs did a good job and he was the lead on some very good recruits this year and took a big step in that part of it.

---

I have completely changed my view on Edwards. The turnover at WR had more to do with academics, non-cal fits, and an unfortunate situation in Robertson's case. The running back as a group improved despite injuries, it may be the deepest unit on the offense. Edwards has proven to be a good recruiter. He has kept some traditional football powers from poaching the running back recruits. He has a high ceiling. I say keep him, but that really is the call for the new OC and Wilcox.

---

You mean like maybe he proved himself over time, that judging a position coach after a small amount of time has passed isn't the way to go?

---

I was judging him on his inability to retain players and the inability of WRs to gain separation (which still is a problem). Even the mods were pretty negative towards Edwards. The player issues were not on Edwards as it turned out, per Wilcox when he did the coach swing down in SoCal; however, Toler, an alum, is much better at having the WRs navigate being at Cal, also per Wilcox. That isn't an issue with RBs. This was the main reason for the change. And it appears Edwards is doing a good job with the RBs. Wilcox said he considers Edwards an up and coming coach (but in a setting with a lot of people you never going to have Wilcox say anything negative).

---

So it's the POSITION COACH's responsibility to retain players???